Thank you for your comment, which we tracked as LC98 [1]. The WG
accepted your proposal. If this resolution is unacceptable for some
reason, please let us know within two weeks.
[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC98
> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]
> On Behalf Of Asir Vedamuthu
> Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2004 6:35 AM
> To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: {soap mep} property and SOAP 1.1 Binding
>
>
> Background Info
>
> "{soap mep}, a wsdls:anyURI, which is an absolute URI as defined by
> [IETF
> RFC 2396], to the Binding Operation component. The value of this
> property
> identifies the SOAP Message Exchange Pattern (MEP) for this specific
> operation. If no specific value is assigned, then the value assigned
> by the
> default rules apply (for SOAP 1.2, see 2.10.3 Default Binding Rules).
> It is
> an error for this property to not have a value (which MAY happen if
> the
> default rules are not applicable)." - Part 3
>
> Last sentence, it is an error if {soap mep} property does not have a
> value.
> As I recall, this is the reason why I made up those spooky URIs for
> SOAP 1.1
> Binding. At the last face to face, we decided to drop those URIs,
> ignore
> {soap mep} property, and rely on Interface Operation component's
> {message
> exchange pattern} property.
>
> Issue
>
> For SOAP 1.1 binding, {soap mep} property has no value. Per Part 3, it
> is an
> error if {soap mep} property does not have a value.
>
> Proposed Solution
>
> In Part 3, move this constraint from Binding Operations to SOAP 1.2
> Binding
> section.
>
> Regards,
> Asir S Vedamuthu
> asirv at webmethods dot com
> http://www.webmethods.com/